46 match win streak (Vilas)

The point is that looking at old footage of players isn't the necessarily the most adequate means of judging their abilities.

If Laver was to compete against Djokovic with modern racquets, modern balls on modern courts he'd lose convincingly. But in a match between the two with wooded racquets, old balls on contemporaneous courts, Laver would win easily.

Agreed. In tennis terms, he was a great physcial specimen, and very much ahead of his time (it is no wonder he won the Grand Slam) I think he would be able to adapt no matter the era. There's not too many players who would be considered in that way.

What kind of a lame field of grass players is it that Nadal with his bazooka of a serve can hold serve 80 straight times, even if it were prime Rafa, let alone diapered grass court novice one. Prime McEnroe, prime Connors, or prime Sampras would be coming to net off 2006 Nadal's FIRST serve regularly and breaking him like candy, while Agassi would be ripping return winners at will and doing the same vs 2006 Nadal on grass. You only help prove my point.

Click to expand...

This is where the "grass is slow" argument comes in play. Since the surface is slow (which favors baseliners) and Nadal is the best baseliner it's not that weird that he held so many times in a row.

I'd care about firstly winning majors, then being able to consistently beat my main rivals. Winning the biggest tournaments and beating the toughest opponents along the way. Those are the 2 things I'd want more than anything else as a player.

I'd hate to be the guy winning majors but somone keeps beating me and I know deep down in my heart I need to avoid this guy / hope that he gets beat by somebody else in order to win my majors. This would make title wins hollow.

I'd care about firstly winning majors, then being able to consistently beat my main rivals. Winning the biggest tournaments and beating the toughest opponents along the way. Those are the 2 things I'd want more than anything else as a player.

I'd hate to be the guy winning majors but somone keeps beating me and I know deep down in my heart I need to avoid this guy / hope that he gets beat by somebody else in order to win my majors. This would make title wins hollow.

Click to expand...

That would apply to Wozniacki who was #1 without winning majors and Serena would spank her every time in a major. But Fed has won 17 slams, so what is your argument?

I'd care about firstly winning majors, then being able to consistently beat my main rivals. Winning the biggest tournaments and beating the toughest opponents along the way. Those are the 2 things I'd want more than anything else as a player.

I'd hate to be the guy winning majors but somone keeps beating me and I know deep down in my heart I need to avoid this guy / hope that he gets beat by somebody else in order to win my majors. This would make title wins hollow.

Click to expand...

The field is the opponent, and Federer won that battle so far. You really do not need a computer to see that.

I'd care about firstly winning majors, then being able to consistently beat my main rivals. Winning the biggest tournaments and beating the toughest opponents along the way. Those are the 2 things I'd want more than anything else as a player.

I'd hate to be the guy winning majors but somone keeps beating me and I know deep down in my heart I need to avoid this guy / hope that he gets beat by somebody else in order to win my majors. This would make title wins hollow.

Click to expand...

You have your own biased opinion. The only thing I agree with you is the bolded part.

But the pointless reference to weeks at #1 is what you get as a last-ditch effort on the part of some to give Federer a credit, when doing so reduces the value of majors.

Weeks at #1 is a superior accomplishment? Quite funny.

That is the heart of delusion. As noted earlier, many have had long runs at #1, but few ever won the Grand Slam--the height of tennis achievement. This is why Federer would never be a GOAT. The talent for that kind of dominance was not there, so in comes celebrations of weeks at #1.

But the pointless reference to weeks at #1 is what you get as a last-ditch effort on the part of some to give Federer a credit, when doing so reduces the value of majors.

Weeks at #1 is a superior accomplishment? Quite funny.

That is the heart of delusion. As noted earlier, many have had long runs at #1, but few ever won the Grand Slam--the height of tennis achievement. This is why Federer would never be a GOAT. The talent for that kind of dominance was not there, so in comes celebrations of weeks at #1.

Click to expand...

Do you think Laver would have won the Grand Slam if he had to face Nadal in the FO final?

But the pointless reference to weeks at #1 is what you get as a last-ditch effort on the part of some to give Federer a credit, when doing so reduces the value of majors.

Weeks at #1 is a superior accomplishment? Quite funny.

That is the heart of delusion. As noted earlier, many have had long runs at #1, but few ever won the Grand Slam--the height of tennis achievement. This is why Federer would never be a GOAT. The talent for that kind of dominance was not there, so in comes celebrations of weeks at #1.

Nadal on clay is pushing it. For anyone to beat Nadal on clay, you would need a guy who was at his absolute best with Nadal playing average at best simultaneously. I'll compare Nadal on clay with Sampras on grass with Federer (on grass & HC) that when they are playing their best on those respective surfaces, they are as close to unbeatable as it gets. I don't think Laver could beat Nadal on clay, now, some internet troll who doesn't understand the concept of 'matchup' can disagree, I don't see Laver out-gunning Nadal from the back court and I don't see laver being that successful at the net against Nadal on clay. Hard and grass are different stories. I do think people can't bare to let go about these old-time greats and don't want to realise that the sport might have moved on.

Nadal on clay is pushing it. For anyone to beat Nadal on clay, you would need a guy who was at his absolute best with Nadal playing average at best simultaneously. I'll compare Nadal on clay with Sampras on grass with Federer (on grass & HC) that when they are playing their best on those respective surfaces, they are as close to unbeatable as it gets. I don't think Laver could beat Nadal on clay, now, some internet troll who doesn't understand the concept of 'matchup' can disagree, I don't see Laver out-gunning Nadal from the back court and I don't see laver being that successful at the net against Nadal on clay. Hard and grass are different stories. I do think people can't bare to let go about these old-time greats and don't want to realise that the sport might have moved on.

Stop what? Stop giving current players their due? I'm not the one saying that an 11 time Grand Slam champion and 7 time French Open winner would be a nobody if he didn't have poly strings...

Direct your pleas at someone else. In this very thread I've said that with todays equipment I think Laver could hold his own against Djokovic.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that Nadal would be excellent in any era. Just as I believe Laver would be excellent in any era.

But Nadal wouldn't be great because of his great topspin. Not with a Maxply racquet. It isn't happening. I believe in Laver's era, Nadal would develop the necessary touch and net game required in that era -- and be successful.

But the things that give him success in this era, are not the things that would make him successful in Laver's era.

I absolutely agree that Nadal would be excellent in any era. Just as I believe Laver would be excellent in any era.

But Nadal wouldn't be great because of his great topspin. Not with a Maxply racquet. It isn't happening. I believe in Laver's era, Nadal would develop the necessary touch and net game required in that era -- and be successful.

But the things that give him success in this era, are not the things that would make him successful in Laver's era.

Click to expand...

This. People don't seem to get that Nadal is a product of the generation he plays in, and would learn, practice, and play differently if he was in a different era. The whole "stick a wooden racquet in his hand" argument is so pathetic it's ridiculous.

I absolutely agree that Nadal would be excellent in any era. Just as I believe Laver would be excellent in any era.

But Nadal wouldn't be great because of his great topspin. Not with a Maxply racquet. It isn't happening. I believe in Laver's era, Nadal would develop the necessary touch and net game required in that era -- and be successful.

But the things that give him success in this era, are not the things that would make him successful in Laver's era.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I disagree. Yes Nadal would develop a better net game and touch. But I think the skills he already has would also be useful in the 60's. Not as effective as they are now ofcourse but still effective. His speed and movement would be excellent in any era wouldn't you agree? Would that not aid him in his success.

Likewise I'm often told by those in the Former Greats section that many older players did hit with topspin. Now why is it wrong for me to say that Nadal would still generate some topspin even with an older raquet?

I thought it best to mention the qualities he possesses rather than hypotheticals, however true they maybe.

Wasn't 1969 just the 2nd year of the open era? Were the matches televised to hundreds of million or billions of viewers? Was the top tennis more like gentlemen's sports or nowadays megamillion fight? I for one believe in capitalism, ie, megamillion endorsement contracts bring out the best competition in sports. The pro circuit in 1969 couldn't possibly be like today's in term of debts and top level of competition.

Hoodjem,Ralph wouldn't generate half the topspin with a wooden racquet that he does with the Babo. I think some of these folks who make these claims need to play with a wooden racquet, it's hard enough to play with one. :lol:

BTW have you played with a wooden,hoodjem? Man it's hard! I still remember the day when my dad gifted me a graphite tennis racquet and I remember vividly what a relief it was to switch.